COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE DISCUSSES FOLLOW-UP TO COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS RECEIVED BY CIVIL SOCIETY

The Committee against Torture today discussed the issue of follow-up to individual communications as well as letters received from civil society on how the Committee could improve its working methods.

Presenting the report on follow-up to individual communications, Committee Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez said there were six cases still waiting for answers by State parties on requests for information. One was from Canada and one from the Netherlands; these dated back to the 1990’s. More recent cases concerned Spain in one case and three concerned Serbia and Montenegro. It was proposed that the Committee once again insist for answers, even in the older cases, as replies had been received even after a very long time in earlier cases.

Concerning the cases for which information had been updated, Mr. Marino Menendez noted that in an Azerbaijan case from 2005 involving a person accused of terrorism, a decision adopted in May of this year by the Committee had requested for interim measures to be taken, but the State party had not accepted this. It was proposed that the Committee continue to follow this case closely. In a Canadian case involving a Mexican Zapatist, interim measures had been accepted by the State party. In another Canadian case involving an Iranian citizen, the person was sent back to Iran, even though the State party had accepted interim measures. The person had not complained of ill treatment in Iran, thus Canada’s position was that there were no reasons to continue looking into this matter. There was contradictory information saying that the person was persona non-gratta in Iran and had no access to medical care.

Other cases discussed included a French case, in which the State Party had indicated that the person had been sent back to Tunisia and that this person did apparently not suffer from any ill treatment there, noted Mr. Marino Menendez. France would still continue to communicate with Tunisia on this case. In a Belgian case, one complainant had died in Senegal. In a Swedish case, it was recommended that the State arty continue to monitor the situation of the complainant.

Concerning the charges of torture against the former President of Chad, Hissene Habre, who was living in Senegal, Mr. Marino Menendez said that Senegalese authorities had responded several times to requests from the Committee for follow-up information. Senegal had said that it would honour its obligations, Mr. Marino Menendz said, but Mr. Habre’s defense lawyers had said that no decision concerning the extradition of Mr. Habre had been taken, 17 months after the Committee’s decision. Communication with Senegalese authorities would continue and a meeting would be held between them and the Special Rapporteur on Follow-up. In the following discussion, Committee Experts expressed the view that the Senegal case seemed to be progressing too slowly. It was recommended that the Committee urge the authorities to speed up the process of implementing the decision of the Committee to start criminal proceedings on this case.

According to the Convention against Torture, a communication may be submitted by any private individual who claims to be the victim of a violation of the Convention by a State party that has recognized the competence of the Committee under Article 22 and that is subject to its jurisdiction. If an alleged victim is not in a position to submit a communication, his or her relatives or representatives may act on his or her behalf.

Towards the end of the afternoon meeting, the Chairman of the Committee, Andreas Mavrommatis, presented a first set of letters received from Amnesty International that included several suggested recommendations on how to improve the Committee’s working methods, the way State parties were reporting to the Committee and how it could develop a transparent and effective process to receive and consider information from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The Chairman noted that several of the raised points were legitimate and that the Committee had to discuss these.

In the ensuing discussion between Committee Experts, an Expert said that what civil society had to say about how the Committee was working was seen as important. On the list of issues, an Expert agreed that it should be made available early enough on the Internet, to let NGOs prepare their information. One of the important points was the question of what to do with countries delaying their reports and those that had more than one report in the waiting. It was noted that there were now two modus operandi for State reports and States could now choose which one they wanted to follow.

The Committee decided to thank Amnesty International for its letters and that the Secretariat would work to implement some of the issues to facilitate the NGO’s access to information.

At the end of the meeting, the Committee discussed the list of issues to be taken up for the next country reports.

When the Committee next reconvenes in public on Tuesday, 20 November at 10 a.m., it is scheduled to meet with the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to discuss the Optional Protocol.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT07037E